Slitherine

jlopez wrote:More so than Goldsworthy IMHO.

Never trust anyone called Goldsworthy.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Moro wrote:Therefore -and caming back to rule mechanisms- how could we solve the problem of the poor underrated warbands (that no one fields)?

One option which we are considering is to change the CT modifiers to

-1 if foot losing impact combat vs drilled impact foot
-2 if foot losing inpact combat vs undrilled impact foot

On the grounds that the "barbarian" charge is fiercer and more likely to crack the enemy morale if they win the impact.

That's reasonable. Combined with the skilled swordsmen POA only counting if steady (downgrades to Swordsmen if not) it could make the melee interesting: barbarians on 5s with more dice vs disrupted superior romans on 4s repeating 1s.

jlopez wrote: No break-offs, no breathers just a good old hacking match.

This is impossible. Which is one of the reasons the Romans using a battlefield replacement system worked so well. People naturally have to rest.

Luckily people are average and get knackered at the same time. The art is to catch your enemy whilst he is resting and you are fresh.

So small pockets of people "pretending" to be fighting and not putting much effort in, IMO, would be common.

They would continue doing this until some side made a break through somewhere along the line and then react to it. (run like f!*^ or fight harder). Or actually have a good rest, spot a weakness and slyly chop the enemies head off whilst he's not looking, therefore making the break through and becoming a hero.

But breaking off more than just stepping back a couple of paces would be very dangerous

jlopez wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:One option which we are considering is to change the CT modifiers to

-1 if foot losing impact combat vs drilled impact foot
-2 if foot losing inpact combat vs undrilled impact foot

On the grounds that the "barbarian" charge is fiercer and more likely to crack the enemy morale if they win the impact.

That's reasonable. Combined with the skilled swordsmen POA only counting if steady (downgrades to Swordsmen if not) it could make the melee interesting: barbarians on 5s with more dice vs disrupted superior romans on 4s repeating 1s.

I like both of these.

rbodleyscott wrote: especially since, as Julian says, there is no certainty that these break-offs even occurred in reality.

I take it neither of you have read Zhmodikov's work on Roman infantry fights then?

jlopez wrote:Combined with the skilled swordsmen POA only counting if steady (downgrades to Swordsmen if not)

Don't see the need for that - just don't rate Romans as SSw. Keeps things simples and keeps the barbars in with some hope if they fail to win the impact which can only be a good thing.

Undrilled Almughavars would be keen on the -2 for losing to Undrilled IF idea

nikgaukroger wrote:

jlopez wrote:Combined with the skilled swordsmen POA only counting if steady (downgrades to Swordsmen if not)

Undrilled Almughavars would be keen on the -2 for losing to Undrilled IF idea

If anyone ever fielded them as Impact Foot. Perhaps with that they might.

nikgaukroger wrote:

jlopez wrote:Combined with the skilled swordsmen POA only counting if steady (downgrades to Swordsmen if not)

Don't see the need for that - just don't rate Romans as SSw. Keeps things simples and keeps the barbars in with some hope if they fail to win the impact which can only be a good thing.

Would be a viable proposition if you can convince the other two authors.....

philqw78 wrote:

jlopez wrote: No break-offs, no breathers just a good old hacking match.

This is impossible. Which is one of the reasons the Romans using a battlefield replacement system worked so well. People naturally have to rest.

Quite - it is fairly basic physical limitations that mean fights cannot be continuous, and not "psycho-babble"

The limitations of the human body (allowing that the soldiers involved were somewhat better equipped to physical activity than fat desk bound wargamers) coupled with the sort of analysis of the length of battles done by Sabin show that fighting cannot be continuous.

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

jlopez wrote:Combined with the skilled swordsmen POA only counting if steady (downgrades to Swordsmen if not)

Undrilled Almughavars would be keen on the -2 for losing to Undrilled IF idea

If anyone ever fielded them as Impact Foot. Perhaps with that they might.

It would certainly make the choice between Offensive Spear and Impact Foot less of a no brainer. I think I have always taken the Almughavars as spear because it is almost always better than the impact foot alternative.l

philqw78 wrote:.This is impossible. Which is one of the reasons the Romans using a battlefield replacement system worked so well. People naturally have to rest.

It is possible. Even the Romans managed it, again against the Gauls:

Polybius 2.33

"And this was due to the foresight of the Tribunes: for the Consul Flaminius is thought to have made a strategic mistake in his arrangements for this battle. By drawing up his men along the very brink of the river, he rendered impossible a manœuvre characteristic of Roman tactics, because he left the lines no room for their deliberate retrograde movements; for if, in the course of the battle, the men had been forced ever so little from their ground, they would have been obliged by this blunder of their leader to throw themselves into the river."

Polybius 3.73 Trebbia

"The heavy-armed soldiers, however, who were in the front rank of both armies, and in the centre of that, maintained an obstinate and equal fight for a considerable time."

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

jlopez wrote:Combined with the skilled swordsmen POA only counting if steady (downgrades to Swordsmen if not)

Undrilled Almughavars would be keen on the -2 for losing to Undrilled IF idea

If anyone ever fielded them as Impact Foot. Perhaps with that they might.

Well myself and Pete Reilly always field them as Impact Foot - both in doubles together and when we play singles. Can't help it if other players lack the cajones ...

Not to mention that such a change may well encourage more to use then in their proper form

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

jlopez wrote:Combined with the skilled swordsmen POA only counting if steady (downgrades to Swordsmen if not)

Don't see the need for that - just don't rate Romans as SSw. Keeps things simples and keeps the barbars in with some hope if they fail to win the impact which can only be a good thing.

Would be a viable proposition if you can convince the other two authors.....

That might mean I had to come up with a polite opinion of the alternative view, rather than a rather Jer-esque one I would be tempted to

Of course, as the solution is a list classification one those who write the lists have the ability to classify as they see fit

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

jlopez wrote: No break-offs, no breathers just a good old hacking match.

This is impossible. Which is one of the reasons the Romans using a battlefield replacement system worked so well. People naturally have to rest.

Quite - it is fairly basic physical limitations that mean fights cannot be continuous, and not "psycho-babble"

The limitations of the human body (allowing that the soldiers involved were somewhat better equipped to physical activity than fat desk bound wargamers) coupled with the sort of analysis of the length of battles done by Sabin show that fighting cannot be continuous.

OK let's just forget that the primary sources clearly think that they did just that. If the Roman system for substituting ranks was so common, why did Polybius bother mentioning it? Because it was excepcional perhaps? What about the Greeks? How the hell does a hoplite fighting in a line with shields overlapping fall back into the rear ranks when these are pushing forward (othismos)? Indeed, how does a pikeman do it with his pike stuck in the enemy or his shield, a third of the pike extending into his own formation and another four pikes on either side of him? Was Greek warfare less strenuous?

Transposing this argument to the first world war, I wonder if third millenium historians will suggest soldiers couldn't possibly handle the strain of being shelled continuously for days on end and had to pop back to the rear for a nice cup of tea every so often.

I think the more reasonable explanation is that in non-Roman armies, warriors that got too tired to fight effectively often, well, died to be replaced by the guy behind until panic set in and the formation broke. Long lasting battles were the exception (the sources emphasize this), most were often reasonably short and not a few didn't even start as one side broke on or before contact.

jlopez wrote: OK let's just forget that the primary sources clearly think that they did just that.

I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that the sources are pretty much a "top down" description of a battle, with an important literary element as they were to be read out in public, rather than a "bottom up", soldiers eye view of the battle, therefore, they do not generally bother themselves with the nitty gritty, especially if it would disturb the flow of the narrative. This point is well made in Sabin's "The Face of Roman Battle".

If the Roman system for substituting ranks was so common, why did Polybius bother mentioning it?

Lulls in fighting are not the same as systematic rank replacement, just because it was not used by others does not indicate there were not lulls. It would be wrong to confuse or conflate them.

Because it was excepcional perhaps? What about the Greeks? How the hell does a hoplite fighting in a line with shields overlapping fall back into the rear ranks when these are pushing forward (othismos)? Indeed, how does a pikeman do it with his pike stuck in the enemy or his shield, a third of the pike extending into his own formation and another four pikes on either side of him? Was Greek warfare less strenuous?

Quicker apparently - although I only mention it as an aside.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Moro wrote:Therefore -and caming back to rule mechanisms- how could we solve the problem of the poor underrated warbands (that no one fields)?

One option which we are considering is to change the CT modifiers to

-1 if foot losing impact combat vs drilled impact foot
-2 if foot losing inpact combat vs undrilled impact foot

On the grounds that the "barbarian" charge is fiercer and more likely to crack the enemy morale if they win the impact. If they fail, of course, then their lack of armour etc. kicks in and they get a good walloping.

That sounds like an improvement to the balance of the game Richard. It does seem to fit the Roman vs foot barbarian battles - if the barbarians could get in a decent charge on level terms they could sweep away the Romans. The current rules don't quite do that. A -2 would mean that an unsupported line of average legionaries without a general could get in big trouble if unlucky - seems about right.

The discussion of lulls is all very interesting, and as I said above the authors were sold on the idea to the extent that we included it in the initial versions of the rules. However, in play-testing, representing it by break-offs seemed to do nothing but slow down game resolution.

As has been pointed out, the lulls did not necessarily imply a significant fallback, which being the case, it is reasonable to assume it is all subsumed in the melee resolution mechanisms. (Just as we don't need to calculate the result of each sword stroke). Some abstraction is required if games are to be completed within a reasonable time frame.

As a mechanism for improving barbarians it is not really on, for the reasons stated above, and because it is at least highly questionable that the resumption of combat after a lull would justify the full impact foot bonus anyway. The primary sources are pretty clear that the fierce initial charge attributed to "barbarians" and Samnites was at initial impact only, with a rapid fade off in prolonged combat. I see no reason why this prolonged combat would not include the lulls and resumption of combat thereafter (assuming they exist). If the barbarians made multiple fierce charges, I think it is reasonably safe to say that this would be of sufficient interest to contemporaries to be mentioned in the primary sources. (If only because it has rhetorical value in bigging up the eventual victors).

nikgaukroger wrote:. Can't help it if other players lack the cajones ...

It´s COJONES ;p The phrase is funny though, because CAJONES means drawer or crate.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Moro wrote:Therefore -and caming back to rule mechanisms- how could we solve the problem of the poor underrated warbands (that no one fields)?

One option which we are considering is to change the CT modifiers to

-1 if foot losing impact combat vs drilled impact foot
-2 if foot losing inpact combat vs undrilled impact foot

On the grounds that the "barbarian" charge is fiercer and more likely to crack the enemy morale if they win the impact. If they fail, of course, then their lack of armour etc. kicks in and they get a good walloping.

Like it.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Moro wrote:Therefore -and caming back to rule mechanisms- how could we solve the problem of the poor underrated warbands (that no one fields)?

One option which we are considering is to change the CT modifiers to

-1 if foot losing impact combat vs drilled impact foot
-2 if foot losing inpact combat vs undrilled impact foot

On the grounds that the "barbarian" charge is fiercer and more likely to crack the enemy morale if they win the impact. If they fail, of course, then their lack of armour etc. kicks in and they get a good walloping.

I also like this, which may explain why some of us are rule peddlers and the rest are us are rule meddlers.